


^OV" 






vO' 




v>o^ 




'bV" 



.- ^^--^ 






< o 




.0' 



'. '-^^0^ c 




^' 




'•n^ 


0^ 


o 


4 


O^ 


^ 


/ 


»<^ 






O 






o 






<U 


» * 


• o* 


o 







» ^c^^*^-^' o 



"< -n^o^ 



'^ 0^ ° •?vv,-:^m. 









• ' ' ^' 



Cv^ 



-^^0^ 



° " '' * O 






''^^v.:^ 



^oV" 







' . . s ' ^'> < > -o • * - 







REMARKS 

Ml ROCKWELL, OF CONNECTJCUT. 

VT- IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES U. 8., DEC, 15, 1845. 



House of Represenlatites, Dec. 11, 1845, Mr. Rockv/kll, of Connecticut, presented i)\e. follow- 
ing resolutions, which he moved should be printed ; which motion was objected to, and the reso- 
lutions were laid over. 

At a General Assembly of the Slate of Connecticut, holden at Hartford, in said Stale, on th«! 
first Wednesday of May, A. D. 1845. 

Resolved by this JssenMy, That the power to admit into the Union new States, not formed from 
the original territory of the United Stales, is not conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. 

Resolved, That the aimexation of a large slave-holding territory by the Government of the 
United States, with the declared intention of giving strength to the institution of domestic slave- 
ry in these States, is an alarming encroachment upon the rights of the freemen of the Union, a 
perversion of the principles of republican government, a deliberate assawlt upon the compromises 
of the Constitution, and demands the strenuous, united, and persevering opposition of all per- 
Bona who claim to be the friends of human liberty. 

ReMolved, That the vote given by John M. Niles, a Senator of Connecticut in the Senate of the 
United States, in favor of the joint resolutions of the Congress of the United States, in February 
la«t, providing for the annexation of Texaa and the admission of five new States from its terri- 
tory, to extend and perpetuate the system of human .slavery and add to its already predominant 
influence in the national councils, is in opposition to the clearly expressed will of the people of 
Connecticut, and of a large portion of the people of the Uniteci States; and that those resolutions 
are incompatible with tlie spirit of the Declaration of Independence, with the compromises of the 
federal Constitution, and with the great purposes for which it is declared by the people to have 
been ordained and established. 

Resolved, That a measure so unfounded in principle, so dangerous as a precedent, and so des- 
tructive in its tendency to the peace and prosperity of the country, and the objects of the Union, 
can never receive the sanction of the people of Connecticut. 

Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward copies of these resolutions to each of the 
Senators and Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States. 

House of Rep7-ese)ii(Uives, December 15, 1845, the Speaker announced the resolutions of the 
General Assembly of Connecticut, against the admission of Texas as a Slate into the Union, 
heretofore presented by Mr. Rockwell, a member from that State, and laid over under the rule 
for debate. 

Mr. Rockwell moved that the resolutions be committed to the Committee of the Whole 
House on the state of the Union, and that they be printed. 

The resolutions, upon the call of several members, having been read by the Clerk — 

Mr. Rockwell addressed the House eu? follows: 

Mr. Speaker: It is with sincere regret that I feel myself obliged, by the 
course taken in relation to these resolutions, to trespass, for a few momenta, 
on the time and patience of the House . I had not designed , at this early 

Eeriod of the session, having so recently taken my seat in this House, to 
ave spoken , at length , on this or any other question before it ; and although 
I am forced to do so, I do not design to enter into a lengthened discussion 
of the various and exceedingly important questions connected with the an- 
nexation of Fexas, but shall confine myself strictly to the question, and to 
such brief statements of my views on the subject of annexation , as are ap 
propriate on the present occasion . 

J. k. G. S, Gideon, Trinters. 






2 



1 understand , from llie oldest and most experienced members of this body 
near me, that the practice has been imiform, when desired, to refer to a 
committee, and to print, the resolutions of a sovereign State of the Union, 
addressed to Congress. This has been the course, so far as I can learn, with- 
out a single exception. It is a courtesy which has never been denied by 
this House to the States of the Union; and, least of all, did I expect to meet 
opposition from the several gendemen who have raised this objection. It 
ill became those, who profess to be the peculiar friends of State rights, to 
adopt any course throwing contempt on a sovereign State. On tlie very day 
when these resolutions were presented , the House, without objection, re- 
ceived, and ordered to be printed, the resolutions of several States of the 
Union. Why sliould this courtesy be denied to the State of Connecticut? 
It was not denied in relation to two series of resolutions of that State pre- 
sented i3y me on the same day, although in relation to (he resolutions con 
cewiing the State of Rhode Islaud some gentlemen seemed disposed to ob- 
ject. I am to infer, then, that it is because honorable members dislike the 
subject-matter of die resolutions, and wish to prescribe the topics on which 
the several States of this Union shall be heard in Congress. I will not be- 
lieve that this House are prepared to adopt this unheard of and preposterous 
doctrine. 

Dut let us look at the subject-matter of these resolutions. They relate to 
no merely abstract question, but one of a highly practical character. Here 
tofore objections have been raised, most unwisely indeed, and improperly, 
but with some plausibility, against the reception of peUtions foi' the abolidon 
of slavery in the District of Columbia, and other kindred questions, because 
it was claimed that Congress had not the constitirtional power to grant the 
petitions; but no such olijection applies here. This very question is now 
before Congress; with a most indecent haste it has been pressed forward , 
and assigned , specially , for consideration to-morrow; and it is understood 
that, although at the moment in which I am speaking, we have laid, for the 
lirst time, on our desks, the copy of the constitution of Texas, and the ac- 
companying papers, it is not only to be brought forward , but to be decided to- 
morrow, by the application of the previous ([uestion. It is, therefore, a 
pending question, or rather an impending one. 

But, Mr. Speaker, it is also a most important question; far more import- 
ant, as I conceive, than any whicli has heretofore occupied the attention of 
Congress. It involves the addition of a very large territory to diis Union. 
In the limits last claimed not less than 400,000 square miles, equal to 250,- 
000,000 of acres, are embraced — an empire in itself. 

It is the addition of a foreign territory, in clear violation of the provisions 
of the constitution of the United States. The power, by the 3d section of 
the 4th article of the constitution of the United States, conferred upon Con- 
gress to admit new States, it is perfectly apparent from the whole section, is 
not, by any fair construction, embraced within the letter of the constitution 
It is in well known violation of its spirit, and entirely inconsistent with tlic 
principle of compromise upon which the constitutioii is based. When Lou- 
isiana was to be purchased and added to the Union, Mr. Jeflferson express- 
ly stated, that it was without an\ warrant whatever in the constitution, and 
the measure was only adopted from the obvious necessity of controlling the 
GUI let of the Mississippi, and by the general acquiescence of all the States, 



The muilt ot its admission i.s ciemly nncoii.^tilutiunal — \jy a joint lesoki- 
tion of both Houses of Congress. It never couUl have been admitted by 
the consent of the Senate, if that iiad been the only aUernative offered. It 
was dearly a case for the treaty-making power, ret(niring a vote of two- 
ihirds of the Senate to ratify the act. Such was the opinion of a majority 
of the Senate; such was, and is, the opinion of the most intelligent men in 
the country, almost without exception. Some of the most distinguished 
advocates of the measure, at the south, acknowledged that it was a clear 
violation of the constitution, but declared that self-preservation, in the form 
of the preservation and perpetuation of their peculiar institutions, ]u^\\^ed 
and required its adoption. But there were some northern men, who, al- 
though not particularly scrupulous when called upon to submit to the mo- 
dest demands of their soutlrern allies, required some slight excuse for vio- 
lating the dictates of their own consciences, and acting and voting directly 
contrary to dieir well known and often expressed opinions. The farce was 
acted out, of leaving wiih the President, whose opinions were well known, 
to adopt eilher the cotu'se of a treaty, or to act under the joint resolution, as 
he might deem best; and, as if to\ender this evasion the more ridicidous, 
the then acting President, as one of his last acts, despatched a messenger, 
with railroad speed, to consummate this glorious act before he retired from 
olfice. 

Such is one of the many most important questions which, legitnnately, 
and most appropriately, is piesented for the consideration of Congress, when 
called upon to admit Texas to the Union, and to carry out the unconstitu- 
tional acts of the last session, and the conse([uent acts of Texas and the 
President. 

But further, Mr. Speaker: By the joint resolution of the last session, for 
the annt:xation of Texas to the United States, it was provided, in the second 
section, that ''the foregoing consent of Congress is given upon the following 
conditions, and with tiie following guaranties;" one of which was as fol- 
lows; "New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in 
addition to said State of Texas, and having sullicient population, may 
hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory there- 
of, whicli shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal 
constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said 
territory, lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, com- ' 
monly knowii as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the 
Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admis- 
sion may desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said 
territory, north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary ser- 
vitude,' except for crime, shall be prohibited." 

The meaning of this provision is entirely plain. It was introduced in 
order to quiet the consciences and secure the votes of some northern men. 
There was to be, in no event, any slavery north of the line called the com- 
promise line. Whichever of the five States carved out of that territory, 
not lying north of that line, was to be a free State. If the four new ones 
to be fonned out of the entire territory should be south of that hue, the re- 
maining original State must, of course, be free; and if the State of Texas 
.remained in its original undivided state, the compromise required that no 
slavery was to be allowed north of that line. Such was the compromise, to 
secure northern votes; and, what is far more important, such was die reso- 



lution passed by Ooiigrees. The constitution of Texas, upon which w^ 
are to be called to act to-morrow, expressly, and in the most ofiensive man- 
ner, violates this compromise, and the resolutions of Congress of the last 
session . 

In the first section of the 8th article it provides, that 'Uhe legislature shall 
have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves, without tlie con- 
sent of their owners, nor without paying their owners, previous to such 
emancipation, a full equivalent, in money, for the slaves so emancipated. 
They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to this State from bringing 
with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any of the Uni- 
ted States, so long as any person, of the same age or description, shall be 
continued in slavery by the laws of this State. Provided, that such slave 
be the bona fide property of such emigrants," &c. 

I stop not to dwell upon the monstrous character of these provisions in 
the constitution of Texas; upon the fact that a few years since this territory 
was a free territory, made so by the authority of Mexico ; that for the first 
time in the history of the country, a constitution is brought before Congress^ 
for their sanction , prohibiting the legislature of a State from abolishing sla- 
ver}', and this retrograde movement, too, in the nineteenth century. I leave 
these questions for a more appropriate occasion. What I now claim is, that 
in adopting the constitution there has been a breach of faith and a violation 
of the provisions of the resolutions, adopted in the spirit of compromise, at 
the last session. Compromise, I mean, so far as the friends of the measure 
from the North in the two Houses of Congress are concerned. 

These resoluiions speak in direct terms of the "Missouri comproviise;''* 
I stop not to inquire how far that is binding on any one. It is, I under- 
stand, claimed to be so in the slave States. It cannot any longer be claim- 
ed to be so if this constitution is sanctioned by Congress. The present Stnte 
of Texas embraces the territory north of 36° .50', and provides not only that 
slavery shall exist, but that the legislature shall never prohibit ii in any por- 
tion of the territory. If, therefore, this constitution is ratified and confirm- 
ed, the compromise is at an end. It has been violated by the slave-holding 
States, and they cannot claim its being observed in future. 

Again, by the Constitution of the United States it is provided, 'Hhat no 
person shall be a representative who shall not have been seven years a citi- 
zen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabi- 
tant of that State in which he shall be chosen," and that "no person shall 
be a senator who shall not have l,een nine years a citizen of tlie United 
States," tfcc. By these provisions of the Constitution it is manifest that the 
addition of a new foreign territory was never contemplated , ruul, if, admit- 
ted, the State of Texas cannot, by law, be entitled to representatives in ei- 
ther House of Congress; as, if citizens of Texas are elected, they will not,, 
of course, have been citizens of the United States for the time required by 
the Constitution of the United Slates. 

In relation, too, to the resolutions proposed for the admission of Texas. 
In all previous cases the bouvdaries of the new State were required to be de- 
fined, and were defined, and recognised by Congress, before the admission 
into the Union. In the present instance, neither by the acts of tlie last ses- 
sion, nor by those proposed at the present, are there any such boundaries, 
or any thing indicating at all the extent of the territory included in the new 
Slate — whether one, two, or three millions of acres — whether embracing or 



not provinces claimed to belong to Mexico, and in her possession and juris- 
diction. 

A provision is also contained in the resolutions that Texas shall he enti- 
tled to two representatives in Congress. The resolution for the admission 
of Texas, at the last session, provided that, in case of the election by the 
President of proceeding to negotiate a treaty, the State of Texas should be 
entitled to two representatives, but no such provision was made incase of its 
admission by joint resolution. 

The Constitution of the United States requires that "representatives and 
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be 
included within this Union, according to their respective numbers;" and the 
uniform course has been, from the year 1803, when Ohio was admitted into 
the Union , to 1836 , when Michigan was admitted — by some official enumera- 
tion of the inhabitants within the specified boundaries — to ascertain whether 
the requisite number, even for one representative, existed in the State ask- 
ing admission. In relation to Texas, there is no such official evidence of 
there being the requisite number of persons, and, so far as there is any evi- 
dence on the subject, it is decidedly that the requisite number of inhabitants 
for two members of Congress does not exist in Texas, although the compu- 
tation be made, in relation to slaves, according to the provisions of the Con- 
stitution . The only evidence appearing before Congress is the official re- 
turn in the papers before this House, showing that only 4,521 votes were 
polled, for and against, on the question of annexation to the United States. 
So that, in its inception, and in every stage of its progress, there has been 
the most total disregard and violation of the provisions of the Constitution of 
the United States. The rights of the free States have been throughout dis- 
regarded, and their remonstrances treated with contempt. 

Such and so important is the subject matter of the resolutions of the State 
of Connecticut, which I ask to have referred and printed. 

Is there any thing objectionable in the resolutions themselves? The first 
resolution presents a grave question of constitutional power, to which I have 
already alluded, now pending before Congress, which we are to consider, 
or rather which we are to act upon, to-moiTow. 

The second resolution is expressed in strong and emphatic language; 
there is no mistaking the meaning of the legislature when they say, that the 
proposed annexation is "aw alarimng encroachment upon the rights of the 
freemen of the Union; a perversion of the principles of republican govcrn- 
/ncnt; a deliberate assault vpon tlie compromises of the Constitution''^ — 
they mean what they say, and in so saying ihey express the deep, strong 
feeling, the deliberate opinion, of the people of Connecticut. They con 
sider themselves wronged, their rights as freemen of the Union outraged; 
that "the compromises of the Constitution," upon which the Union is based,, 
have been violated — shamefully, deliberately, understandingly violated — by 
the course pursued; and it is in obedience to their wishes and my own sense 
of duty; that I would make ^'strenuotis and persevering opposition^ ^ to this 
measure . 

Mr. Speaker, we have no hostility to our southern brethren ; far other- 
wise. We have no desire, directly or indirectly, to interfere with slavery in 
the several States. For good or for evil, (and for myself I consider it un- 
mijted evil,) it is for them to do in that matter as their sense of duty, 
and a just regard for their true interests, may dictate. My own State. 



and oiiiei nuilbem Stales, not i'luut ixny nyiprviui \hliw ^hut uwiiuj; \o ilie 
>!inall.niiml)er of the slave popiilntlon, and to the nnconj^enial character of 
the climate, have been earlier in the movement of a gradual emancipation, 
I most ardently hope , I most devoutly pray , that those States in which this evil 
still continues, may he willing and ready, and in their own way , to rid 
themselves of this institution. 

We mean to abide, in its spirit and letter, by the Constitution, and (he 
spirit of compromise with which it was adopted, and without which it 
never could have been adopted, and we insist that the other States in this 
Union shall do the same. 

The liberty party at the Norlli is comparatively a small one. It is made 
as large as it is by the course pursued at (he South on tliis question, and es- 
pecially by the course pursued in this House. A false issue has been made. 
The petitions of numerous citizens have heen rejected and treated with con- 
tempt, and this oppression has produced sympathy and support. I am not 
responsible for the course pursued by (hat party ; while I respect most of 
(hem, not only as men of good inten(ions,but of intelligence and good sense, 
I abominate the course they have pursued on the question of the annexation 
of Texas. I think their course inexcusable. Very likely they may return 
the compliment. Certain it is that it is not as the candidate of that party, or 
by their aid, that I am here. 

At the same time that I say this, I beg leave also distinctly to say, that 
the feeling in the free States is all one way on this subject of domestic slav- 
ery. The opinion that slavery is an evil and a wrong of a most decided 
character, is almost unanimous. They look forwaid to the future witli the 
most serious apprehension. They regarcl it, sir, as an enormous evil — iui- 
7ner/icobilcvubn(s,a corrosive, malignant, bitter wound, not to be tampered 
with by quacks, or slightly healed, but requiring the most wise, and pru- 
dent, and thorough treatment. 

I have a few words to say in relation to the course pursued in this House 
in relation to petitions and resolutions on the subject of slavery. 

A mild course, Mr. Speaker, is the best course. The feelings of the 
North have been irritated by the course heretofore taken in relation to peti- 
tions. They feel deeply W'Ounded and aggrieved at the wrong which has 
been committed in relation to the annexation of Texas. The pcti(ions on 
this subject, ouglit to have been respectfully treated and referred to an appro- 
priate committee. It does no good to puisue the course w^hicli has been 
pursued, and is still continued. The odious 2ist rule, although nominally 
repealed, is practically adopted. The feeling at the North, even of the most 
ardent on (he sul)i('ct of .-.lavery, can be reasoned with, can be conciliated, 
but it cannot be coerced; and he is a bold man who shall think it prudent 
or safe to trifle with, and insult, and exa.^jierate, and aUemj)! to dri\(' the 
people of the North. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the man who does 
any such act as tlia( , knows not what lie is doing, nor the jieople with whom 
he is dealing. They are indeed "slow unto anger," and party alliances may 
for a while repress the growing feeling on this subject, but they will not al- 
ways be as mild and submissive under wrong and insult as they have been 
heretofore. 

The course pursued in relation to (he various pe(itions on (he subject of 
annexation, and indicated in lelation to these resolutions by (he objections 
from various gentlemen in diiferent parts of this House, has been entirely 



iinpiovokctl. There has been no fad ious opposilion from this side of liie 
House. It is in bad taste for the majority in this House to pursue this course. 
That majority is so large that they can afford to be magnanimous even; 
they surely can^ to be just. The course is entirely unnecessary and with- 
out excuse, the very '^ superlluity of naughtiness." 

1 hope, sir, in relation to this subject, and all matters connected with it, 
in this House, that wiser and kinder, and more prudent counsels will pre- 
vail, and that gentlemen will not seek to do offensive acts in the most offen- 
•-■•ive possible way. 



f\) 



^.4' 















A 






^ "■' aV °^ 



^°-^^. 



<*. 




3 V 



^ 



3-7- 



^. 






0' 











A 






^. 



0" 



l^^ 




^^ ^,. " c , %S. 



^^-^^^ 




If:^^ ^\ ^ 




■'b ^v 



' „„_. % A^ ^'^%^/K- ^^ 







-^^ -^ 











'-' - V M O ■ .' 

' ' r r> O^ 

,*S^.' ^^ A »^ 



.^^ 






-n^.^^ 















^" . 



•^^ " 





^^-;^. 






A 





.0 







0' 



O 'o . * » A, >> 

"'^ ,\^ ,o. '''^ ^"-^ ^° -^^ -"- ^V 



-^q. 



\r> c,- 


















^. 





-1^ 

DOSBS BROS 

LIBRARY BINDINC 



V . ST. AUGUSTINE 









